WELCOME TO THE BLOG
This blog serves my columns as an archive, a place to add footnotes,data sources and drafts of my weekly 550 word column for the Sky Hi News.(www.skyhidailynews.com) Often these drafts are posted on my Facebook page, The Muftic Forum.. To learn more about the posting subject, click onto the links at the end of the posting.Blog will be on vacation May 28-June 25 2018, with sporadic to no postings during that time.
I remove comments containing expletives and not in English.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The GOP is upending the war on poverty and has declared war on welfare.

Mitt Romney heated it up by choosing for his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan who had authored a budget proposal to unravel much of the safety net. Romney then ran ads claiming President Obama was “dismantling” welfare reform by abandoning work requirements. For this, www. politifact.com gave a rare “Pants on Fire” award to Mitt Romney, and www.Factcheck.org said the Romney ad “distorts the facts.” A letter had been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in response to two Republican governors wanting more flexibility for their state to administer the program. HHS allowed them to do so but they still had to meet and exceed the work criteria required in the original law.

What Romney/Ryan are gutting is not welfare reform, but welfare itself. An Urban Institute analysis of Ryan's budget proposal found block grants would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021 and cut reimbursements to health care providers by 31 percent. Up to 10 million people could lose nutrition assistance since $134 billion (including a 30 percent reduction of the food stamp program) would be cut from the program. At least 62 percent of Ryan's $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over 10 years come from programs that serve the poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. All of this is in the name of lowering the deficit and offsetting tax breaks to the wealthy. The irony is that the Congressional Budget Office determined Ryan's budget would increase the deficit, not decrease it.

Romney has reaffirmed he agrees with the Ryan budget. Remember when Romney said “I am not worried about the poor because they have a safety net” and “I have an absolute moral commitment to help every American help themselves?” In agreeing with Ryan, he OKs knocking holes the safety net and he does not seem to be worried. He is right about one point: Morality is an issue.

The Catholic bishops passed judgment on the Ryan budget. Wrote the Bishops, “… deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.”

Some believe drastic cuts to the safety net are, to the contrary, a moral act because we are doing recipients a favor by keeping them from being dependent on government. So who are they doing such a favor? Mostly kids and the elderly. It is not the adults such policies impact the most. It is the kids who benefit from “welfare.” Three-quarters of food stamp recipients are families with children. Of the nutrition programs for the poor (8.7 million recipients), 4.3 million are women with children, 2.2 million with infants. National school lunch programs: 30.5 million kids benefit. Children's health programs (CHIP) keep them healthy enough to go to school and Head Start gets them ready to enter first grade. Ryan would cut these programs deeply, guaranteeing they will not have good nutrition and early education needed, or to be prepared to qualify for jobs later

There are some practical considerations for those of us not on welfare. Coupled with Ryan/Romney's pledge to kill Obamacare that would give 27 million affordable health insurance and Ryan's cuts to Medicaid of 30 percent, a total of 41 to 60 million would be dumped on our emergency rooms for their health care. The hyper expense of ER medicine would be shifted onto the rest of us. Poor elderly who depend on Medicaid for nursing home care and Medicare supplement would be hardest hit, and their families, able or not, will feel the impact. For more www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

8/29/12
My column in the Sky Hi News today

The GOP is upending the war on poverty and has declared war on welfare.

Mitt Romney heated it up by choosing for his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan who had authored a budget proposal to unravel much of the safety net. Romney then ran ads claiming President Obama was “dismantling” welfare reform by abandoning work requirements. For this, www. politifact.com gave a rare “Pants on Fire” award to Mitt Romney, and www.Factcheck.org said the Romney ad “distorts the facts.” A letter had been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in response to two Republican governors wanting more flexibility for their state to administer the program. HHS allowed them to do so but they still had to meet and exceed the work criteria required in the original law.

What Romney/Ryan are gutting is not welfare reform, but welfare itself. An Urban Institute analysis of Ryan's budget proposal found block grants would lead states to drop between 14 million and 27 million people from Medicaid by 2021 and cut reimbursements to health care providers by 31 percent. Up to 10 million people could lose nutrition assistance since $134 billion (including a 30 percent reduction of the food stamp program) would be cut from the program. At least 62 percent of Ryan's $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over 10 years come from programs that serve the poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. All of this is in the name of lowering the deficit and offsetting tax breaks to the wealthy. The irony is that the Congressional Budget Office determined Ryan's budget would increase the deficit, not decrease it.

Romney has reaffirmed he agrees with the Ryan budget. Remember when Romney said “I am not worried about the poor because they have a safety net” and “I have an absolute moral commitment to help every American help themselves?” In agreeing with Ryan, he OKs knocking holes the safety net and he does not seem to be worried. He is right about one point: Morality is an issue.

The Catholic bishops passed judgment on the Ryan budget. Wrote the Bishops, “… deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test.”

Some believe drastic cuts to the safety net are, to the contrary, a moral act because we are doing recipients a favor by keeping them from being dependent on government. So who are they doing such a favor? Mostly kids and the elderly. It is not the adults such policies impact the most. It is the kids who benefit from “welfare.” Three-quarters of food stamp recipients are families with children. Of the nutrition programs for the poor (8.7 million recipients), 4.3 million are women with children, 2.2 million with infants. National school lunch programs: 30.5 million kids benefit. Children's health programs (CHIP) keep them healthy enough to go to school and Head Start gets them ready to enter first grade. Ryan would cut these programs deeply, guaranteeing they will not have good nutrition and early education needed, or to be prepared to qualify for jobs later

There are some practical considerations for those of us not on welfare. Coupled with Ryan/Romney's pledge to kill Obamacare that would give 27 million affordable health insurance and Ryan's cuts to Medicaid of 30 percent, a total of 41 to 60 million would be dumped on our emergency rooms for their health care. The hyper expense of ER medicine would be shifted onto the rest of us. Poor elderly who depend on Medicaid for nursing home care and Medicare supplement would be hardest hit, and their families, able or not, will feel the impact. For more www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Mitt Romney's pick of Rep. Paul Ryan for VP risks losing some seniors'votes. Ryan had authored a controversial plan that altered Medicare. Until Ryan was picked, Romney had one goal: to repeal Obamacare. A GOP strategy was to frighten seniors by claiming an Obamacare panel would pull the plug on them or would cut their benefits. Romney now says his plan is like Ryan's, but fear not: no one over 55 will see any changes. Horsefeathers.

Ryan's plan is part of his deficit reduction proposal. The President's plan to save Medicare is a part of Obamacare. The major difference is that the Ryan plan to save Medicare will cost current and future seniors out of pocket money and Obamacare puts more of the burden on service provider hospitals, doctors, and insurers.

The Ryan plan partially privatizes Medicare, changing Medicare from a fee for service system to a subsidized purchase of private insurance, though seniors could choose traditional Medicare. Both Ryan/Romney and Obamacare set the same limits on future spending growth.

Here is how Romney/Ryan plans will impact us already on Medicare:

Romney's more recent mediscare infers Obama will steal $716 billion from Medicare benefits. Ironically, Ryan's plan keeps the same $716 billion in cuts but Romney said he would restore them. Romney/Ryan would repeal Obamacare. Romney had been vague on a replacement until last week when he embraced Ryan's plans. By repealing Obamacare, Romney/Ryan would immediately raise the cost of drugs to seniors by re-opening the donut hole, make seniors pay cancer screenings and wellness checks co-pays, and shorten the life of our current Medicare system.

Obamacare cuts no benefits. Much of Obama's cuts to Medicare will be taken from subsidies for insurance companies to administer Medicare Advantage; the rest result from vigorous prosecution of fraud and efficiencies required of the providers such as elimination of duplicate tests and reducing reimbursement to hospitals. Medicare Advantage is a combined Medicare and supplemental plan that is continuing successfully this year without prospects of a subsidy. Insurers just became more efficient. The participating private insurers had tacked on 14% more than what it would cost the government to administer Medicare themselves. These savings are already being used this year to close the donut hole which will be phased out completely by 2020, to eliminate co-pays for cancer screenings and check ups, and to extend the life of Medicare for eight years, making it solvent until 2024 instead of going broke in 2016.

GOP talkers still scare seniors by claiming an appointed panel would make decisions about limiting coverage. The Obamacare law prohibits that from happening. Any reference to end-of-life counseling was deleted from the law and included was a clause forbidding the panel from “any recommendation to ration health care … or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”

Ryan would also cut Medicaid by 30%. Hit hard would be poor seniors who depend on Medicaid as a supplement to Medicare and for nursing home care .

So what would my 40 something children expect when they retire? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could not estimate by how much co-pays would rise because Ryan's newest plan lacks details; his first plan tripled co-pays from the current 25% to 68% because costs would rise faster than funding. AARP also warns of higher co-pays .

By repealing Obamacare, Ryan throws out cost savings measures imposed on providers. He claims competition within exchanges that provide the private plans would be enough to lower costs, but this is no free market. It regulates prices of the participating insurers, limiting competition.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

We voters have a challenge this fall. We will be able to pick between two distinct plans for our future and economy.

Some may think we are in the frying pan now, but we could be taking an inadvertent leap into the fire, too, with the wrong choice. The choices are not simple.

Until now, Mitt Romney has spent energy criticizing Obama's record and identifying goals and priorities, but he has remained vague on the details of the “how to's.” Calling the Paul Ryan debt reduction plan “marvelous,” he left us wondering whether he embraced it completely. By picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney is now presumed wedded to the Ryan plan unless he is specific about the parts with which he disagrees. He should not be allowed to be vague anymore.

There will be much debate about whose ox will be gored by the plan Paul Ryan has proposed. Seniors, in particular those who care about a social safety net (Catholic bishops cal the Ryan plan not moral), investments in our future in education, infrastructure, cutting edge research and development, everyone not military or not wealthy, will need to sit up and take notice. Stay tuned: We will hear much about that in the coming months.

Regardless of any blowback on segments of constituencies, the GOP/Romney/Ryan share the same simplistic theory: Cutting taxes and shrinking government creates jobs and reduces the debt. We all like to pay less taxes, too, so it has tempting bling.

There are other ways to reduce the deficit that are more balanced, more effective, and are less painful. That approach was outlined in the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which President Obama has come close to embracing. If he more openly pits Simpson-Bowles against the Ryan plan, he will have a more powerful card to play than just touting upward statistical trend lines.

If the goal is to reduce the deficit by launching austerity, as Ryan proposes, his plan will accomplish the opposite. The Ryan plan would actually increase the deficit, per a recent Congressional Budget Office report.

Likewise the cost of Romeny's pledge to repeal Obamacare would also cost the federal treasury more than keeping it, per the CBO.

It is also possible that the Ryan plan would deal recovery a painful setback. This may be the slowest recovery in our lifetime, but it is also the worst recession in our lifetime. We are half way there in restoring lost jobs. Economists looking at history have seen it takes eight years to recover from such a financial sector collapse.

We do know it is possible to slide backward if government spending is cut in the middle of a recovery. It happened before. Writing in Forbes, magazine in April, John T. Harvey tagged “The Ryan Budget: A mistake of Historic Proportions.” Harvey looked at the history of the Great Depression recovery. Government spending was cut with the GOP backlash to FDR's New Deal and recovery stalled, taking three more years to repair the damage. The reason? Consumer demand dried up. It is that same old GOP approach tried mid-Great Depression that Ryan is proposing and Romney has embraced.

That makes sense. Over 70 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is driven by consumer spending. Business is not motivated to gamble investments or make more things just to store it in a warehouse without faith demand will increase, lowered taxes on big business or not.

Recently Mitt Romney proposed a tax plan, claiming it would lower taxes on the middle class. Per the respected independent Brookings Institute/Urban Institute Tax Policy Center, and with all three fact checkers in concurrence, Romney's newest tax plan would raise taxes on the middle income, the largest group of consumers, by $2,000 per year, giving them less money to spend, killing off consumer demand even more.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Like a failed Olympic gymnast, FOX stretched truth so far the other week, it fell off the balance beam.

FOX spent nearly a day trying to parse President Obama's remarks, claiming what he said made him anti-business, though the sentence was obviously taken out of context. For that and other misspeaks, the fact checkers unanimously called foul.

Undeterred by facts, Mitt Romney hyped FOX's fib and made it into an attack ad so repetition would turn it into accepted truth.

Common wisdom is that it takes a businessman to help business and the economy, but what the GOP and Romney are proposing would increase the deficit, harm Colorado's tech sector, increase small businessmen's taxes, and blow back on Grand County.

Here in context is what Obama said: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have allowed to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges … If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. ... The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeeded because of individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

FOX/Romney took out of context, “If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen,” ignoring that the president was referring to roads, bridges and education. Romney then fabricated what Obama said with “small business owners do not deserve any credit for their own success.” The Washington Post fact checker gave Romney three Pinocchios out of four for those deceits.

Obama 's statement gave credit to individual initiative, but he also said that government can help entrepreneurs.

Colorado has especially benefited. Denver International Airport is the engine of our tourist and business sector and federal money made its construction possible. Entrepreneurs seized the opportunity and created new businesses. That kind of Front Range growth drives most of Grand County's second home market, skiers, restaurant, retail and lodging customers.

Furthermore, the Ryan plan relies almost solely on cuts in discretionary spending, which includes reduced money for education and cutting edge research and development, upon which Colorado's development of industries of the future depends . Business by themselves cannot always fund research and development, but entrepreneurs can start up a new business based on research performed by government agencies such as Golden's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and by government grants for bio tech research centered at the University of Colorado.

That high tech stimulus money went to foreign countries, per a Romney attack ad, got two Pinocchios for distortion from the Washington Post fact checker July 26. While some manufacturing jobs were generated abroad, the actual stimulus money was spent in the U.S. on U.S. jobs.

The Ryan budget plan called “marvelous” by Romney would not cut the deficit, bad news for those who believe the key to economic revival is deficit reduction. Ryan's plan would increase the deficit more than “current laws,” per a March Congressional Budget Office analysis.

Sensitive to the fact that entrepreneurs start as small businesses, Obama has reduced small business taxes multiple times, and any proposals for increasing taxes or Obamacare mandates exempts 97 percent of small business.

Last week Mitt Romney proposed his tax plan that would raise taxes on middle income, including small business owners. The websitewww.factchecker.organalyzed Romney's plan and concluded it was impossible to cut taxes to the rich without raising taxes on the middle class. The Urban/Brookings Institute Tax Policy Center reported Romney's plan would increase middle income class taxes by $2,000 a year. The Washington Post fact checker andwww.politifact.comagreed. Romney tried to discredit the policy center, but the fact checkers stood by the Center's credibility.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

I have seen some old saws being repeated to rationalize the Ryan budget plan that would cut food stamps for the poor and Head Start, as well. The theory is: if you cut food stamps, the poor welfare queens will not have money left over to buy cigarettes and beer. If we cut their stamps, we will be doing them a favor and force them to drop their nasty habits. Of course,food stamps cannot be used to buy cigarettes and beer, but if we can cut their disposable income , the theory is they will change their habits.

We all need to change some habits, but not that way. The addicted rarely change their habits for money reasons. They just make their addiction their spending priority, not nutrition.

However, this reasoning used by some of the anti food stamp people is based upon both ignorance and some screwy social engineering resulting in collateral damage to the ones who most benefit from such programs: the kids.

To cite a paragraph or two from a prior column I wrote:
"Most of these safety net programs are for children that give them tools to escape dependence. Three-quarters of food stamp recipients are families with children. Of the nutrition programs for the poor (8.7 million recipients), 4.3 million are women with children, 2.2 million with infants. National school lunch programs: 30.5 million kids benefit. Children's health programs (CHIP) keep them healthy enough to go to school and Head Start gets them ready to enter first grade. By reducing money to these programs, we guarantee more poor do not have good nutrition needed to learn, or to gain the ability to qualify for jobs Republicans hope to create.

Romney and the GOP are trying to fool well meaning conservatives, but presenting their plans for the poor as a jobs program or a moral plus is a shameful deception."

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Whether it is winter Olympics or summer Olympics, it is my favorite time.I like them both.

Living in a ski resort,having been a klutzy skier, I can only admire what a dedicated, talented human can do.The reality of winter games is personal. My path has crossed with many of the Olympic and para Olympic medalists who train in Winter Park. Colorado. I am awestruck in their presence.

I have my own favorite summer Olympic event. . Dressage.Yes, that is the same executed in formal wear that has become politically controversial. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, is a dressage rider and her horse is ridden by a professionalin the Olympics . Whoa, there.The sport itself needs defending.

I confess I was adressage rider , hanging up my spurs a couple of years ago, but I learned enough to appreciate the technical ability of the top riders.It is so technical that it is not much of a spectator sportin the US.Unless you are a practitioner, watching a dressage competition is a little like watchinggrass growing.The exception in free style,where horse and rider partner todance to music.

I was once an untutored cowboy rider, beginning at age four on my cousin’s pony. Finally, aftera string of trailhorses,my first big timer was a sorrel quarter horse gelding bred at the little ho Ranch near Granby, Colorado. , a great headin’ horse used by a friend forteam roping in the Granby Flying Heels arena.When I turned 40. I took dressage lessons to improve my riding.

For the next 30 years, improving balance and control, I gained sufficient skills to make whatever horse I owned at the time, a quarter horse, an Arabian, or a Thoroughbred, do some fancy maneuvers. I once thought riding English was for sissies,but perched on a nearly flat saddle without the securityof grabbing thehornof a western saddle is not for wimps.

Dressagewas primarily born in Spain, based on military cavalry techniques, and popularizedby the white stallions of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna,.It is the basic training for police horses and there is a direct connection with western riding, which, too, came from Spain. In the past, usually cavalry officers rode in competition in uniform and some with military or police credentials still do.Formal, white vested wear indeed looks very upper classy, but that is the required costume for civilians in competition.

Yes, it is an expensive sport, but it is possible to do the basics on a budget, and have a good trainer work with you and your horse, a necessity since both need to understand the same cues. It is not a millionaire’s sport unless you launch into major competition and can afford the strong, tall warmbloods, a breed developed from a cross between German north European farm horses andthoroughbreds or Arabians.

I live in cowboy land again, but dressage techniques are also relevant here. They are used by barrel racers to bend a horse better. The western form of dressage, reining, is now an Olympic demonstration event, expected to be formally recognized by 2020. It is performed at warp speed, and unlike dressage , with a loose rein. Both disciplines require performance of tests or patterns . Flying lead changes (switching which leg goes first), roll backs( quick reverses), and spins (turning 360 degrees multiple times with one back foot not moving) in reining also are similar to some slower motion, tightly controlled dressage movements. Sliding skids to stop are left for reining, but a dressage horse has to halt from a canter or a trot immediately with all 4 feet planted perfectly squared . No head tossing,please. Try it sometime, my fellow riders.

About Me

Felicia Muftic is a political columnist with the Sky Hi Daily News, Grand County, Colorado. She writes on current events from a pragmatic, fact based, reasoned perspective.
Felicia has nearly 50 years of involvement in politics, finance,and consumer affairs as either a fly on the wall in international, national, state and local levels or a participant.
Parallel to all of this is intense involvement for over 50 years in the the political process, serving in both cabinet and staff in the administration of Mayor Federico Pena . Partially educated in Europe and married to physician-refugee from the Balkans, her interests are not confined to US domestic problems, but she also has a world view and experiences which are often reflected in her columns.
Felicia Muftic es un columnista político del diario Sky News Hola, Grand County, Colorado. Felicia tiene casi 50 años de participación en la política, las finanzas y de asuntos del consumidor, ya sea como una mosca en la pared en la internacional, nacional, estatal y local o de un participante. Para más información, visite www.mufticforum.com